mUltimate Chopin

Op. 22, Polonaise

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors repeated in GE

b. 152

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

..

In FE, there are no naturals before the bottom voice d1/2/3 notes. The last one is absolutely necessary; in spite of that, it was not added in any of the subsequent editions, in which the additions were limited to a  before d1 at the beginning of the bar. Moreover, FE (→GE) are lacking in the  before c3 in the 2nd figure; the accidental was added in EE. Significantly, the previous note, d3, is preceded with a , which was apparently understood as a cautionary accidental due to the d notes in the bottom voice and in the L.H. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in EE

b. 189

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

..

Like in b. 45, of which the discussed bar is a literal repetition, FE (→GE1→GE2) are lacking in the accidental before the 5th semiquaver from the end, which results in a g2. The mistake was corrected in EE and GE3.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Omissions to cancel alteration , GE revisions , Errors repeated in GE

b. 201

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

..

The sources are lacking in the accidental before the 2nd played note of the run, which must be Chopin's mistake.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Editorial revisions

issues: Omissions to cancel alteration , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in EE

b. 219

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

..

Just like in b. 75, the sources are lacking in the  raising b to b, which is a patent inaccuracy.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in EE

b. 232

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

..

The flat restoring b2 at the beginning of the last triplet does not appear in any of the sources. It seems that it was believed that the  before b3 four semiquavers earlier was not a cautionary accidental only and that it was also valid in the case of the discussed note. The same in b. 252.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Omissions to cancel alteration , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in EE